A. On June 17, 2012, the Defendant entered into an agreement on business alliance with C, a successful bidder of the right to operate a store in B (hereinafter “instant store”) located in Seongdong-si, Sungnam-si, and the Defendant entered into an agreement on business partnership with the Defendant to operate the store in the instant store from June 17, 2012 to June 14, 2015.

B. The Plaintiff supplied food, food materials, etc. to the Defendant from August 2013 to July 2014, and the Defendant did not pay KRW 8,480,039 out of the amount of the goods.

C. On the other hand, on December 17, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the transfer and acquisition of the sales right, management right, etc. of the store managed by C including the instant store (hereinafter “instant contract for the transfer of sales right”).

In addition, on December 23, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted a letter of performance (see Evidence A No. 4; hereinafter “instant performance letter”) as shown in the separate sheet from the Defendant. On December 24, 2013, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 25,000,000, out of KRW 51,232,426, the amount of the credit card seizure for the Defendant Burial, which is about 50%, to the Defendant. On December 27, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 7,693,318 in the form of deducting the amount of unpaid goods from the amount of unpaid goods on December 27, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 4, 7, 10, Eul evidence 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. The summary of the parties' assertion 1, as indicated in the letter of performance of the instant sales license transfer contract, the Plaintiff Defendant complied with the matters set forth in the letter of performance of the instant sales license transfer contract and has a duty to cooperate with C so that the Plaintiff can complete the acquisition of business rights from C, but instead, demanded C to change the name of the store operator in the name of the Defendant, not the Plaintiff, but the name of the third party, and eventually, the name of the store operator was changed to D.

Therefore, the defendant.